Stefan Foser on the Future of Pharma

Bruker talks about the "post-genomic era." What does that mean to you?
 

As a molecular biologist, I find the term "post-genomic era" profoundly significant, marking a transformative shift in scientific focus over the past two decades. Initially, the hope was that understanding genomic data could pinpoint the causes of diseases and lead to effective therapeutics.

In the early stages of my career, the emphasis was on interpreting the genetic code and understanding its implications. This approach was essential for numerous research and development phases. During my career, I have witnessed an exciting shift towards proteins, which are the true functional entities within cells. Proteins provide crucial insights into cellular functions, signifying our transition into a new phase of scientific inquiry.

What excites me the most is the scientific expansion beyond the cellular level to explore more intricate aspects of biology, such as protein glycosylation in the mouse brain. This advancement is pushing us into the realm of multi-modality or multi-omics, offering a much richer functional understanding of both health and disease. By measuring glycosylation and other post-translational modifications (PTMs), we can gain deeper insights into protein function and regulation, thereby enhancing our ability to translate complex biological systems. This paradigm shift holds the promise of yielding profound insights, benefiting not only the academic community but also the pharmaceutical industry.

From your perspective, what might things look like in the next five to ten years in terms of therapies and clinical diagnostics?
 

From my perspective as a molecular biologist, looking ahead five to ten years, the trajectory is clear: we are moving towards a deeper comprehension of diseases through multi-omics. This represents not just a technological evolution but a significant leap in our biological understanding. With the goal is to decode both the underlying causes of diseases and the potential therapeutic avenues. Achieving this requires a robust grasp of both the biological context and the functional aspects of diseases.

When thinking about the analytical challenges in pharma, where do you see the biggest areas where advancements in analytical technology can make a difference for the industry?
 

From an analytical perspective – whether we're talking about measurement techniques, or the types of analytes being measured – there are several areas where technology providers can make a significant impact, particularly in fields like gene therapy or the processing of cell therapies.

When we talk about innovation, we see opportunities across areas like new modalities – gene therapy, protein degradation, as well as the more established antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), for example. We have highly sensitive technologies now that examine effects at the single-cell level, which brings a whole new level of biological insight at a previously inaccessible scale.

Are cell and gene therapies something you are particularly interested in right now?
 

Absolutely! When you think about gene therapies, including CAR T-cell therapy and T-cell engagers, they represent a completely new class of treatments, often referred to as new modalities. You can see this reflected in some of our key focus areas, like immunopeptidomics. This approach helps us understand which cells are being activated and which aren’t, allowing us to combine that information with identifying the best targets for therapies. Immunopeptidomics plays a key role in pinpointing these critical targets.

Of course, these new modalities are still developing, but they’re gaining traction. Over the last 10 to 20 years, antibodies have dominated the development of therapeutic proteins. But now, with the possibility of combining these new modalities, we can create more effective treatments. This is where the pharma industry and Bruker have embarked on an exciting journey.

Take, for example, Blaine Roberts’ work with PET scans, which are widely used in clinical imaging. But now we’re also thinking about less invasive or minimally invasive techniques. When we look at how certain lipids interact in detecting diseases earlier or with greater confidence, it’s clear that this field is evolving. From my perspective, the journey is far from over. With the technology solutions we now have – from sample preparation to the instruments and software – we’re ready to explore the full potential.

Do you think the pharma industry needs more education in terms of understanding the potential here?
 

I think it’s a combined journey. While education is always valuable, I would say it’s less about traditional education at this stage and more about joint exploration of the opportunities that new technologies offer. If you look at tech-focused events like the annual ASMS conference, it’s clear that the focus is on discovery and application. When you see presentations from both pharma companies and academia, the conversation is now about the real, ready-to-use end-to-end solutions that are available.

The potential is enormous, and we are seeing that in the presentations. Take Roman Fischer's work, for example. In the past, peptides weren’t considered that important, but now, with his research, we have proof that peptides are crucial for identifying different isoforms. This is a big shift – previously, we were mostly measuring protein families. Now, we can dive deeper into complex systems and pinpoint the specific proteins that require attention for efficient activity within a complex. This is a major step forward.

Now that you have spent a few months at Bruker, is there anything that’s surprised you?
 

Being at ASMS, I asked myself, "Why didn’t I join this field of protein identification much earlier?" In my previous roles, we were always focused on areas like precision medicine, as you mentioned. But now, with what Bruker is offering, it feels like the perfect time to be part of this journey.

I would also add that there’s often this perception of mass spectrometry being overly complex. But now, with these end-to-end solutions, we have not only reduced the technical complexity but also opened the conversation. Chemists and biologists can work together in ways that were not easy in the past. Honestly, I used to look at protein research and think, "What do I do with this?" Now, with the different software solutions that provide real insights, it’s a game-changer. And I believe this will go beyond just mass spec users. Our goal is to make these tools accessible to non-mass spec users as well, giving them the insights and opportunities that this technology provides.

Do you think there should be more interdisciplinary meetings to facilitate collaborations between different fields?
 

Absolutely! After just a few months in the role, I was already thinking about how important it is to translate what we do into biologically meaningful insights. It’s not about working in silos within different disciplines but about creating opportunities for discussion and collaboration.

For example, I had not really considered lipids much before, as I was always so focused on DNA. But when I heard Blaine's presentation at ASMS and how they are integrating lipidomics in a completely new way, it was eye-opening for me. It showed how combining different approaches can really bring fresh perspectives.

Any closing thoughts on the analytical science industry so far?
 

I am absolutely enjoying it. Attending conferences this year, I have realized that I’m part of something big – not just an evolution but almost a revolution – where we are bringing cutting-edge technologies into biology. It is an exciting time to be part of this field.